On 01/Aug/11 20:32, Barry Leiba wrote: >> I read in the writeup that the IESG approved it as an >> Informational RFC. > > The IESG did not approve it; what you're reading is boilerplate that's > put into the datatracker automatically.
The variant meaning of boilerplate contents keeps disconcerting me :-) Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this possibility, anyway. > In other words, it's not just a matter of sending it to the RFC > editor. It would require getting real approval from the IESG for > publication, which they were told a year and a half ago was NOT what > we were asking for. I'd be very surprised if that were to happen > without objection (that is, without several other discuss ballots). > > It is not worth doing that, and it's likely that it wouldn't go > through if we tried. I am unable to estimate the amount of effort required to go through the approval procedure again, and compare it with the effort already paid thus far. Only the WG can state worthiness, and considering that I'm apparently the only one exhorting to publish as-is, I guess you must be right. > The right thing to do is to make the appropriate changes in a > proper 5321bis document, and advance 5321 to full standard in the > normal manner. +1, I obviously agree! Unfortunately, this option seems to be out of reach right now. Any chance we can pursue it before shutting down? Would the WG resolve to considerately complete 5321bis and only it? Let's not waste good work, please... _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
